cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Smaller than, greater than limits

anand_rao3
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi All,

I have come across a strange requirement. I would appreciate if someone reconfirm me or suggest few more ideas.

  1. In inspection plan one of the MICs is LENGTH which has only upper limits as 1.90mm
  2. I believe it does indicate that any reading which equals to or smaller than 1.90mm is valuated as Accept in QA32 during RR.
  3. Requirement is all the readings that are below or < 1.90 mm are acceptable but 1.90 should have Reject valuation.
  4. Is that feasible to apply some kind of rule for achieving this?

Alternatives that came in to my mind are,

  1. Upper limit should be changed to 1.89 or 1.899. As a result of which absolute 1.90 would result in Reject
  2. Or description of MIC should be LENGTH (< 1.90) with upper limit as 1.90 mm as the specification would be printed in COA. Thereafter user should valuate it manually and reject if reading is 1.90

Many thanks,

Anand Rao

I clarify few more aspects here,

Basically there are following possibilities for the values in fields of lower limit and upper limit.

  1. < 1.90  = All values below 1.90 are acceptable but 1.90 is not
  2. ≤ 1.90 = All values below 1.90 and equal to 1.90 are acceptable
  3. ≥ 1.90 = All values greater than 1.90 or equal to 1.90 are acceptable
  4. >1.90 = All values greater than 1.90 are acceptable but 1.90 is not

Is there any feasibility to accommodate above cases in specification in inspection plan

Anand

Message was edited by: Anand Rao

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

This haas always been a problem in SAP in the QM module. The value in the upper spec for instance is a valid value.  SAP considers all values in upper or lower spec to actually be <= or >= values.  You can definitely do as you already suggested and make the upper spec to be 1.89 as you suggested in QM.

That probably isn't the true problem.  The true problem probably arises when you try to use that spec in a COA.  You want the custoner to see the spec as < 1.90.  

I see two options for this.

1.  Create a second calcualted MIC's for these type of characteristics.  Add them as a conditional MIC that is only done when the controlling MIC is accepted. The formual is simple, C00010.

In the second calculated MIC, the spec is set to 1.90. But this value is only filled when the controlling MIC passes, i.e the one set with an upper spec of 1.899.  The second calculated MIC should always pass as a result.  And in the COA you report the second MIC and spec.

2. In the COA you create a new FM for "insp. spec. origin.".  In the function module you round the spec up once decimal place before returning the value to the COA program.  By doing this, your inspection plan spec is set to 1.899 in the plan.  The FM when reporting this spec, rounds it up one decimal place and this value would becoem 1.90 when published in the COA.  You of course only select this insp. spec origin for characteristics that need it.

If your lower spec is 1.50 your spec value in the lot should be set to 1.501.  When this is rounded, it becomes 1.50.

FF

anand_rao3
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

My apologies for replaying late!

You got it correctly FF. Not only customer but the user also wants to see the spec as < 1.90 (instead of ≤ 1.90) where all values below 1.90 are acceptable but not 1.90.

Your 2nd suggestion sounds good which takes care of printing specs by rounding it off.

At the time of RR even user confuses when he sees the spec as = < 1.90 but cannot conclude whether 1.90 is acceptable or not. I think the description of MIC can help user addressing this. Let me put following 2 hypothetical cases.

Sr

MIC Desc

Spec as it appears in QA32 RR screen

1

Carbon %

= < 0.08%

2

Carbon % (< 0.08%)

= < 0.08%

  1. Case 1 is the normal case where values that =0.08 and < 0.08 are acceptable
  2. Case 2 – here all values below 0.08 are acceptable but 0.08 is not.

If we cannot avoid appearing  = < 0.08% in spec column, at least description can guide user that 0.08 is acceptable or not. And while printing specs on COA, perhaps there could be a way in ABAP to set printing logic similar to one you suggested.

Thank you Sujit for your valuable suggestion also.

Thanks again. Keep posting.

Regards,

Anand

former_member42743
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Rather than using the description of the test, you might want think anout using one of the info 1, 2 or 3 fields for this.  Some tests have long descriptions which if you have to add a spec to it, could exceed the characters allowed. 

You can move the column right niext the results recording column so it is clearly visable to the user.

FF

anand_rao3
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Yes, that can be done.

Many thanks, Anand

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

Former Member
0 Kudos

I would suggest you to use "Input processing " in fomula tab of control indicator in inspection plan.

You can customize "input processing " as per your requirement.

This indicator ensures that entries for an inspection characteristic are processed using predefined rules

anand_rao3
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi All, Any thoughts?